Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] [dhcpv6bis] #155 (XML 3315): Review RFCs that update RFC3315 and to deprecate

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:14:58 -0000

#155: Review RFCs that update RFC3315 and to deprecate

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Here's the proposed actions ...

 In reviewing the documents that "update" RFC 3315:

 - RFC 4361 does not appear to contain any text that updates RFC 3315. So
 nothing needed.
 - RFC 5494 also doesn't really update 3315, excepting that it defines new
 hardware types (experimental) which might be used within a DUID. But I
 don't think we need to reference this RFC.
 - RFC 6221 does modify text and that seems to have been incorporated into
 the bis work, as well as referencing RFC 6221. So, I think there isn't
 anything needed here.
 - RFC 6644 has already been incorporated per the following in the bis
 document:
  "20.  Incorporate everything of RFC 6644, except for Security
 Considerations Section, which has already covered in a more abstracted
 way.  Ticket 55 & 56."
  We do not include RFC 6644 in the references.
  Thus, we should add RFC 6644 to the obsoleted list?
 - RFC 7283 has already been incorporated per the following in the bis
 document:
  "39.  Clarified behavior for unknown messages (RFC7283), ticket 58."
  But the text does still refer to RFC 7283 (for a definition of a valid
 message, see Section 4.1 of [RFC7283]). And, we do include RFC 7283 in the
 references.
  Thus it isn't clear what we should do in this case - we can't obsolete
 RFC 7283 because it is still needed for the definition of "a valid
 message". Should be move this text into the bis and obsolete?

 In reviewing the documents that "update" RFC 3633:
 - RFC 7550 changes will be included.
 - RFC 6603 (Prefix Exclude option) which we don't mention or reference and
 thus we should include a reference to RFC 6603. Also, it seems that much
 of the text for section 12.1 (which has a restriction that RFC 6603
 relaxes) is not in the bis document and thus we need to look into that.
 Some of this text probably should be in the Reply processing (when
 IAPREFIXes are processed).

 And, finally for RFC 3736, there are no obsoleting documents but there is
 an errata (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3736). I
 don't think we have this issue in 3315bis. Thus, I think there are no
 issues here.

-- 
----------------------------+-----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  task            |      Status:  new
 Priority:  P3 major        |   Milestone:  C awaiting consensus
Component:  XML 3315        |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                  |    Due Date:
----------------------------+-----------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/155#comment:2>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>